Reduced Protection for Belted Occupants in Rear Seats Relative to Front Seats of New Model Year Vehicles

Abstract

Effectiveness of the rear seat in protecting occupants of different age groups in frontal crashes for 2000–2009 model years (MY) of vehicles was estimated and compared to 1990–1999 model years of vehicles. The objective was to determine the effectiveness of the rear seat compared to the front seat for various age groups in newer model year vehicles. The double paired comparison method was used to estimate relative effectiveness. For belted adults of the 25–49 age group, the fatality reduction effectiveness of the rear seat compared to the right front seat was 25 % (CI 11% to 36%), in the 1990–1999 model year vehicles. The relative effectiveness was −31% (CI −63% to −5%) for the same population, in the 2000–2009 model year vehicles. For restrained children 0–8 years old, the relative effectiveness was 55% (CI 48% to 61%) when the vehicles were of the 1990–1999 period. The level of effectiveness for this age group was reduced to 25% (CI −4% to 46%) in the 2000–2009 MYs of vehicles. Results for other age groups of belted occupants have followed a similar trend. All belted adult occupants of 25+ years old were significantly less protected in rear seats as compared to right front seats in the 2000–2009 model years of vehicles. For unbelted occupants however, rear seats were still a safer position than front seats, even in the 2000–2009 model years of vehicles.

INTRODUCTION

Many researchers have studied protection of rear seat occupants using real world data or laboratory crash tests. Real world data studies report better protection for the occupants in the rear seats compared to those in the right front seats (Smith and Cummings 2004, 2006), especially when only frontal crashes are considered (Evans and Frick 1988). The protection offered by the rear seat has been confirmed for children (Berg et al. 2000, Arbogast et al. 2009). It is reported that the protective effect of the rear seat decreases with occupant age or by restraint system usage (Kuppa et al. 2005, Smith and Cummings 2006, Sahraei et al. 2009). In contrast to real world analyses results, many crash tests have shown higher injury risks for the dummies in the rear seats when compared to those in the front seats (Kuppa et al. 2005, Tylko and Dalmotas 2005, Mizuno et al. 2007).

Sahraei and Digges (2009) used National Automotive Sampling System’s Crashworthiness Data System (NASS CDS) data to show that the risk of MAIS2+ injury for belted adult rear seat occupants has increased from 1.6% in model years (MY) 1993–1999 vehicles to 5.1% in MY 2000–2006 vehicles. For the same model year groups of vehicles, the risk of injury to front seat occupants has decreased from 7.8% to 6.3% (Sahraei and Digges 2009). In another study, using Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) data, Sahraei et al. (2009) showed that the effectiveness of the rear seat relative to the right front seat has been decreasing significantly over model years of vehicles, both for belted and unbelted occupants. However, these studies report an overall benefit in the rear seating position compared to the front seating position when all age groups of occupants are aggregated for the study, even in the latest model year groups of vehicles. It is also reported that all age groups of occupants benefit from sitting in the rear seat when all model years of vehicles are aggregated for the estimate.

Winston et al. (2007) used the Partners for Child Passenger Safety (PCPS) database and a matched cohort design to compare the differential injury risk (AIS2+) between restrained child passengers in the rear sear and their driver in different model years of vehicles (Winston et al. 2007). They found that odds ratio of driver versus child passenger injury was 3.75 in MY1990–1993, while it decreased to 3.06 in MY 2002–2006 vehicles, when child passengers were not age and restraint stratified. When stratified, they found a decreasing trend in relative protection of children 4–8 and 9–12 years old in seatbelts, with increasing model year. However, this trend was reversed for children 0–8 YO in child safety/booster seats. Arbogast et al. (2009) used PCPS data and compared risk of injury to children in rear seats versus right front seats. While the study showed that all children benefit from sitting in the rear seat compared to sitting in front, the difference between two seating positions was not statistically significant for the 2003+ MY vehicles, probably due to the small number of children in front seats of those vehicles.

Due to small sample sizes, age-stratified analyses examining the relative effectiveness of the rear versus front seat in newer model year vehicles have not produced statistically significant findings. In this research, using FARS 2008 data in addition to previously available data and using control group filtering, as explained by Sahraei et al. (2009), have resulted in new findings especially regarding protection of adults in the rear seats. Furthermore, to evaluate the findings from FARS data, a group of NHTSA vehicle database crash tests with dummies in the rear seats were also investigated. The HIC, N_ij, chest acceleration and deflection, and Laituri AIS3+ chest injury risks of rear seat dummies versus dummies in driver and right front seats were studied. This study is focused on frontal crashes, as the highest protection of rear seat occupants is expected to be in this direction.

METHODS

FARS Data and Effectiveness Estimates

FARS data of the years 1990–2008 were used for this study. Model years of vehicles included were from 1990 to 2009. The vehicles consisted of passenger cars, utility vehicles, minivans, and pickups with gross vehicle weights less than 10,000 lbs. Frontal crashes with the principal direction of impact in the 11, 12, or 1 o’clock direction with no rollover were included. Restrained occupants were those using both lap and shoulder belts or children in child safety seats, and unrestrained occupants were those not using any seatbelt or child safety seat. Occupants using only a lap belt or only a shoulder belt were not included in the analyses. For the analysis, occupants were divided into five age groups: 0–8 Years Old (YO), 9–15 YO, 16–24 YO, 25–49 YO, and 50+ YO. Vehicles were divided into two Model Year (MY) groups, 1990–1999 MY, and 2000–2009 MY.

For the effectiveness analysis, the double paired comparison method was employed (Evans 1986). This method is the most suitable to be used with FARS data, where the severity of crashes is not recorded by a measure like delta V. This method normalizes crashes by dividing the number of fatalities in a specific group of occupants to the number of fatalities in a control group. It has been used to estimate the effectiveness of restraint systems and seating positions by various researchers (Dalmotas and Krzyzewski 1987, Evans 1987, 1988, Cummings et al. 2003).

Using this method (Evans 1986, 1987), the effectiveness is estimated as E= 100×(1-r₂/r₁), where r₂ is the rear passenger to driver fatality ratio and is calculated by dividing number of rear passenger fatalities (c) to the number of driver fatalities (d) in a group of crashes with both a driver and a rear passenger in a vehicle and at least one of them killed as a result of the crash (Group A); r₁ is calculated in a similar way as the right front passenger to driver fatality ratio (m)/(n) in a group of crashes with a right front passenger and a driver present in the vehicle and at least one of them killed as a result of the crash (Group B).Standard error and error bounds are calculated by :

$$\begin{array}{l}\sigma =\sqrt{1/c+1/d+1/m+1/n}\\ E_{\mathit{\text{lower}}}=100\times [1-e^{\text{ln}(1-E/100)+\sigma }]\\ E_{\mathit{\text{upper}}}=100\times [1-e^{\text{ln}(1-E/100)-\sigma }]\end{array}$$

Estimates are considered statistically significant when both higher and lower error bounds are either positive or negative. Drivers are the control group in these calculations. It has been shown by Sahraei et al. (2009) that when passenger groups are categorized by age, it is important to have an age criterion for the control group as well. Otherwise a bias in the age of the control group can distort the effectiveness estimates. For this study, control groups are defined as belted drivers between the ages of 25 to 49 years old. Cases with unrestrained drivers and drivers younger than 25 or older than 49 years old are excluded from calculations. This method of control group selection has been discussed and referred to as control group filtering by Sahraei et al. (2009). The only exception for the calculations presented in this paper were for the groups of unrestrained children (age≤15 years), which, due to their small sample size in front seats, control group filtering was not feasible; therefore, unfiltered control groups were used for unrestrained children age groups. Comparing the effectiveness results for two model year groups, when the 95% confidence intervals do not overlap, it means, with 95% probability, the two values are not similar.

Vehicle Crash Tests

To further verify results of the effectiveness analysis, vehicle crash tests with dummies in the rear seat were investigated. The crash test study was limited to adult dummies in the rear seat. When an adult dummy was in the rear seat, there were also other adult dummies in the right front and driver seats and their injury measures could be compared. However, due to lack of test results with child dummies in front seats, a similar evaluation was not possible for the child age groups. Tests available from the NHTSA vehicle database with an adult 5%ile female or 50%ile male dummy restrained with a 3-point belt in the rear seat were investigated (46 tests). The dummies in the front seats of these tests were 5%ile female, 50%ile or 95% male dummies. Two of the dummies included were THOR dummies, 20 of them were Hybrid III with THOR legs, and the rest were Hybrid III dummies. The tests were vehicle-to-barrier tests with a “00” impact angle (12 o’clock direction) with a 3 to 5 star NCAP rating. The crash speeds for these tests were 40–57 km/h. Tests were divided to three groups based on the test speed: 40, 48, and 56 Km/h. As only belted dummies in the rear seat were included, the unbelted front seat dummies were also excluded from the data. Driver and Front passenger airbags were deployed in all tests.

Vehicle model years included were 2002–2006. Body types of these vehicles were passenger cars, utility vehicles, minivans, and pickups. All tests are listed in Appendix 1. There were 45 dummies in the driver seat, 45 dummies in the right front seat, and 60 dummies in the rear seat of the vehicles. Information about dummy types and sizes and speed of tests are included in Appendix 2. Injury measures studied and compared for rear versus front dummies included HIC15, N_ij, 3 ms clip chest acceleration, chest deflection, and the Laituri risk of AIS3+ chest injury:

$${\text{P}|}_{\text{AIS}3+}^{\text{Thorax}}{|}_{30\text{yr}}=\frac{1}{1+e^{-\left(-7.777+\frac{21.99}{0.855}{\left(\frac{{\delta }_{\text{HIII}50}(\text{mm})+11}{229}\right)}_{\text{Dummy}}\right)}}$$

This equation shows the Laituri risk function used for the 50%ile male dummy. For other dummy sizes the equivalent deflection was calculated (Laituri et al. 2003). Chest accelerations and deflections were normalized for dummy sizes using limits defined in the final airbag rule (Eppinger et al. 2000). Table 1 shows the head, neck, and chest injury criteria for three adult dummy sizes available in selected tests. When comparing injury measures for the three sitting positions, significant testing was performed using PROC GLM of the SAS software (SAS Institute Inc. 2004).

Table 1.

Recommended Injury Criteria for the Final Rule of FMVSS 208 (Eppinger et al. 2000)

Recommended Criteria	95th %ile Male	50th %ile Male	5th %ile Female
HIC (15 ms)	700	700	700
Nij	1	1	1
Chest Acc. (g)	55	60	60
Chest Def. (mm)	70	63	52

RESULTS

The sample of rear seat occupants for this study included only those accompanied by a belted driver. With this condition, the sample set included 7,144 rear seat occupants. It was composed of 47% male and 53% female occupants. The composition of rear seat occupants by age is shown in Figure 1. It included 53% belted and 47% unbelted occupants. Total numbers of fatalities in 1990–1999 MY vehicles versus 2000–2009 MY vehicles are shown in Table 2.

Figure 1:

Age composition of rear seat occupants accompanied by a restrained driver in Group A

Table 2:

Number of fatal and non-fatal rear seat occupants in the two model year groups of vehicles studied

Model Year	Non-Fatal (%)	Fatal (%)	Total
1990–1999	2318 (46%)	2685 (54%)	5003
2000–2009	910 (43%)	1226 (57%)	2136

There were 17,504 cases of right front seat occupants accompanied by a belted driver. The composition of these occupants by age is shown in Figure 2. This group consisted of 41% males and 59% females, 82% belted and 18% unbelted occupants. The composition of fatalities of these right front seat occupants by vehicle MY is shown in Table 3.

Figure 2.

Age composition of right front seat occupants accompanied by a restrained driver in Group B

Table 3.

Number of fatal and non-fatal right front seat occupants in the two model year groups of vehicles studied

Model Year	Non-Fatal (%)	Fatal (%)	Total
1990–1999	4454 (34%)	8664 (66%)	13118
2000–2009	1678 (38%)	2701 (62 %)	4379

For the two age groups of unbelted children, due to the small sample size of occupants in the right front seat, filtering of the control group was not applied. The values used for these estimates are tabulated in Table 4. For groups of unbelted adults, as well as for all belted occupant groups, the filtered control group was used to calculate the effectiveness. Consequently, only cases with drivers in the 25–49 year old age group were included. All the values used for these calculations are summarized in Tables 5 and 6.

Table 4.

Data used for relative effectiveness estimation for unbelted children, unfiltered control group is used for these groups

Age group (years)	MY of vehicle	Driver group B (n)	RF Pass. (m)	Driver group A (d)	Rear Pass. (c)
0–8	1990–1999	33	102	194	197
0–8	2000–2009	5	9	61	53
9–15	1990–1999	44	75	276	185
9–15	2000–2009	7	19	47	60

Table 5.

Data used for relative effectiveness estimation for unbelted adult occupants, filtered control group is used for these groups

Age group (years)	MY of vehicle	Driver group B (n)	RF Pass. (m)	Driver group A (d)	Rear Pass. (c)
16–24	1990–1999	50	120	126	72
16–24	2000–2009	15	30	36	33
25–49	1990–1999	158	411	166	192
25–49	2000–2009	53	126	54	81
50+	1990–1999	31	196	36	125
50+	2000–2009	9	41	27	68

Table 6.

Data used for relative effectiveness estimation for belted occupants, filtered control group is used for these groups

Age group (years)	MY of vehicle	Driver group B (n)	RF Pass. (m)	Driver group A (d)	Rear Pass. (c)
0–8	1990–1999	137	139	529	244
0–8	2000–2009	25	19	224	128
9–15	1990–1999	256	145	214	79
9–15	2000–2009	82	41	116	49
16–24	1990–1999	371	249	86	34
16–24	2000–2009	146	76	45	20
25–49	1990–1999	974	1017	89	70
25–49	2000–2009	411	321	46	47
50+	1990–1999	213	615	36	93
50+	2000–2009	98	209	21	65

Figure 3 shows the relative effectiveness of the rear seat relative to the right front seat in protecting unbelted adult occupants. The effectiveness values for unbelted children and adults younger than 50 years old age groups are lower for the newer model year vehicles. However, for most age groups of occupants, the confidence intervals for two MY groups of vehicles overlap. Furthermore, since all the values are still positive, they show a higher protection for unbelted rear seat occupants in frontal crashes relative to unbelted right front seat occupants, even in the newer model year vehicles.

Figure 3.

Effectiveness of rear seat compared to right front seat in protecting unbelted occupants

For the belted occupants, as it can be seen from Figure 4, no occupant age group has a significant positive relative effectiveness estimate in the newer model year vehicles. Belted children 0–8 YO benefited from the highest relative protection in the rear seat E=55% (95% CI 48 to 61) in 1990–1999 MY vehicles. The relative effectiveness for this group has decreased to E= 25% (95% CI −4 to 46) in the 2000–2009 MY vehicles. For belted children 9–15 YO the relative effectiveness changed from E= 35% (95% CI 23 to 45) in 1990–1999 MY vehicles to E =16% (95% CI −9 to 35) in 2000–2009 MY vehicles. For belted adults of the 16–24 YO group, the relative effectiveness has decreased to E= 15% (95% CI −15 to 37) in the newer model year vehicles. It was E=41% (95% CI 27 to 53) in the older model year vehicles. However, the confidence intervals for effectiveness values of two MY groups overlap for the 9-15 and 16–24 YO age groups. For the 25–49 YO belted occupants, the relative effectiveness decreased from E=25% (95% CI 11 to 36) in the 1990–1999 MY vehicles to E=−31% (95% CI −63 to −5) in the 2000–2009 MY group. It has also decreased for 50+ YO occupants from E= 11% (95% CI −10 to 28) in the older MY vehicle group to E=−45% (95% CI −92 to −10) in the newer MY vehicle group.

Figure 4.

Effectiveness of rear seat compared to right front seat in protecting belted occupants

To further verify the results of the effectiveness analysis (real world data) for adults older than 25 YO, crash test results were investigated. A comparison of injury measures for the adult dummies in the rear seat to those in the driver and right front seats is presented in Figures 5 to 9. There were total 104 dummies included in these tests. Tests at 40 Km/hr included 19 dummies in rear seat, 6 dummies in driver seats, and 6 dummies in right front seats. At speed of 48 Km/hr, there were 20 dummies in the rear seats and 11 dummies in each of the front row seats. At speed of 56 Km/hr, there were 21 dummies in the rear seats and 5 dummies in each of the front row seats.

Figure 5.

Head Injury Criteria (HIC 15) for the dummies in driver, right front, and rear seating positions

Figure 9.

Neck injury criteria for the dummies in driver, right front, and rear seating positions

Figure 5 shows the HIC15 for dummies in the three seating positions. The HIC15 for the rear seat dummies is more than twice of that for the driver at 48 Km/hr tests (p-value <0.0001). HIC15 was also significantly higher for rear seat dummies compared to right front seat dummies at 56 Km/hr (p-value=0.012) and higher for rear seat compared to right front and driver dummies at 40 Km/hr (p-value=0.0001). Figure 6 shows the Laituri risk of AIS3+ thorax injury for dummies in the three seating positions. This risk is higher for the rear seat dummies compared to the driver and right front seat dummies at speeds of 48 and 56 Km/hr (p-values= 0.014 and 0.0021); however, the difference is not significant at speed of 40 Km/hr (p-value= 0.10). Figures 7 shows normalized chest acceleration for the rear seat dummies compared to the driver and right front seat dummies. The difference between chest accelerations is not significant at any of the speeds (p-values= 0.087, 0.12, and 0.62 at 40, 48, and 56 km/hr respectively). Figure 8 shows normalized chest deflection for dummies in each sitting position. Normalized chest deflection is higher for rear seat occupants when compared to right front seat occupants (p-value= 0.0078) at 40 Km/hr. Also, it is higher for rear seat occupants compared to both right front seat occupants and drivers at speeds of 48 and 56 Km/hr (p-values <0.0001). Figure 9 shows neck injury (N_ij) values for the dummies in the rear seat compared to those in driver and right front seat. N_ij values are also higher for dummies in the rear seat compared to those in right front seat at all three speeds (p-values <0.0001). They are also higher for rear dummies compared to driver (p-values <0.0001) at speeds of 48 and 56 Km/hr.

Figure 6.

Laituri risk of AIS3+ chest injury for the dummies in driver, right front, and rear seating positions

Figure 7.

Normalized chest acceleration for the dummies in driver, right front, and rear seating positions, reference values are reported in Table 1

Figure 8.

Normalized chest deflection for the dummies in driver, right front, and rear seating positions, reference values are reported in Table 1

DISCUSSION

In this paper, the protection of rear seat occupants compared to right front seat occupants in newer model year vehicle was investigated and compared to similar front versus rear seat evaluations in older vehicles. Occupants were divided into 5 age groups, and the double paired comparison method was used. Results showed that the relative effectiveness has decreased in newer model years of vehicles (2000+ MYs) for belted children 0–8 YO and belted adult occupants 25+ YO compared to the older MY group. While belted occupants of all age groups were better protected in rear seats rather than right front seats of older model year vehicles (with exception that the estimate was not significant for passengers older than 50), none of the age groups of belted occupants are significantly better protected in rear seats of newer model year vehicles. The most important finding was the “negative” effectiveness for all belted adult occupants of 25+ years old in newer model years of vehicles. This result means that belted occupants of 25+ years old are significantly less protected in the rear seats compared to the right front seats of newer model year vehicles. This finding was also corroborated by the available crash test data which showed higher injury measures for the dummies in the rear seats compared to those in the right front or driver seats. Unbelted occupants; however, are still better protected in rear seats compared to the right front seats, even in the newer model year vehicles.

These findings of reduced relative effectiveness for most age groups of occupants confirm previous reports by Sahraei et al. (2009) regarding the decreasing trend of relative (rear/front) effectiveness over model years of vehicles. It is also consistent with previous reports that the risk of MAIS2+ injury for rear seat adult passengers (not relative to front seat occupants) has increased in newer model years of vehicles (Sahraei and Digges 2009, Sahraei et al. 2009).

Kent et al. (2007) performed a double paired comparison analysis for restrained occupants for two vehicle model year groups (1991–1998 and 1999–2005) and showed that effectiveness of the newer group was lower for most of the age groups in their study. However, due to the small sample size of the newer model year vehicles, most of the effectiveness estimates for the newer model year group contained large error intervals and were not statistically significant (Kent et al. 2007). In our study, a larger sample size and use of control group filtering shows that negative effectiveness for belted occupants 25+ years old is statistically significant. Furthermore, the use of control group filtering results in having positive effectiveness estimates for all age groups in the older model year vehicles (although the estimate is not significant for belted occupants 50+ years old).

Our crash test result investigation is consistent with findings of Kuppa et al. 2005, Tylko and Dalmotas 2005, and Mizuno et al. 2007. The closest study to this investigation was done by Kuppa et al. 2005 and included 26 adult dummies and 30 child dummies from crash tests with 2001–2004 MY vehicles. We have included data for 60 adult dummies in the rear seat of 2002–2006 MY vehicles and excluded the child data. The purpose was to compare injury measures for adult occupants in the rear seat versus the right front seat position, and to verify the negative rear/front effectiveness estimates for belted occupants 25+ years old. Similar data (in the right front seat) were not available for child dummies. We have also used an additional injury measure of the Laituri risk of AIS3+ thorax injury to investigate the risk of thorax injuries. Observation of large injury measures for chest and neck are in accordance with findings of Michaelson et al 2008 who studied PMHS responses in the rear seat and found multiple rib fracture and severe lower neck injuries for the subjects (Michaelson et al. 2008).

Limitations of this study include that the crash test data were not a statistical sample of crash responses of the vehicle fleet on the road. Therefore, the results cannot be expanded to the entire vehicle fleet. Also, no causes or countermeasures have been investigated in this research. Other researchers have suggested progressive force-limiting seatbelt systems as a possible countermeasure (Forman et al. 2009). Regarding the causes for this trend, the authors’ hypothesis is that the increase in stiffness of new model year vehicles (Swanson et al. 2003) combined with a lack of advancement in rear seat restraint systems design could have a role on this outcome. Evaluation of this hypothesis is a subject of our future research.

CONCLUSION

The relative fatality reduction effectiveness of the rear seat compared to right front seat was compared for two model year groups of vehicles for belted and unbelted occupants of different age groups. The newer model year had lower relative effectiveness for several age groups of occupants. For belted occupants, a significantly better protection in the rear seat was not found for any age groups of occupants in the newer model year vehicles (2000+ MY). In fact, belted occupants of 25+ years old are significantly less protected in rear seats compared to right front seats of 2000+ MY vehicles. Unbelted occupants are still significantly better protected in the rear seats as compared to the right front seats, even in the newer model year group.

APPENDIX 1

List of vehicles used for crash tests included in this study:

Test Number	Make	Model	Year
4512	CHEVROLET	TRAILBLAZER	2002
4779	CADILLAC	CTS	2003
4784	HONDA	CRV	2003
4978	DODGE	DURANGO	2004
4986	JEEP	LIBERTY	2004
5068	LEXUS	RX330	2004
5071	TOYOTA	CAMRY	2004
5090	TOYOTA	HIGHLANDER	2004
5104	HONDA	ACCORD	2004
5136	HONDA	ODYSSEY	2004
5137	JEEP	LIBERTY	2004
5138	TOYOTA	CAMRY	2004
5139	HONDA	ACCORD	2004
5140	CHEVROLET	AVALANCHE	2004
5143	FORD	TAURUS	2004
5144	HONDA	ODYSSEY	2004
5145	HONDA	ACCORD	2004
5149	HYUNDAI	ELANTRA	2004
5152	FORD	ESCAPE	2005
5158	JEEP	LIBERTY	2004
5163	NISSAN	QUEST	2004
5164	MITSUBISHI	GALANT	2004
5167	NISSAN	MAXIMA	2004
5168	HONDA	ELEMENT	2004
5173	MERCEDES	C230	2004
5174	HYUNDAI	TIBURON	2004
5182	CHRYSLER	CONCORDE	2004
5191	CHEVROLET	MALIBU	2004
5203	TOYOTA	SIENNA	2004
5210	CHEVROLET	AVALANCHE	2004
5211	JEEP	LIBERTY	2004
5212	HONDA	ODYSSEY	2004
5213	CHEVROLET	AVALANCHE	2004
5215	HONDA	ACCORD	2004
5216	TOYOTA	CAMRY	2004
5388	TOYOTA	COROLLA	2005
5404	TOYOTA	COROLLA	2005
5540	FORD	FREESTYLE	2005
5713	CHRYSLER	TOWN AND COUNTRY	2005
5714	HONDA	ODYSSEY	2005
5715	HONDA	RIDGELINE	2006
5765	SUZUKI	VITARA	2005
5768	KIA	SEDONA	2005
5769	HYUNDAI	TUCSON	2005
5797	HYUNDAI	SONATA	2006
5802	HONDA	RIDGELINE	2006

APPENDIX 2

List of dummies included in this study:

Test Number	Speed	Position	Dummy type	Dummy size
5540	1	40	HT	5
5765	1	40	H3	5
5768	1	40	H3	5
5769	1	40	H3	5
5797	1	40	H3	5
5802	1	40	H3	5
4978	6	40	H3	50
4986	6	40	H3	50
5068	6	40	H3	50
5071	3	40	H3	5
5090	6	40	H3	50
5104	3	40	H3	5
5149	6	40	H3	5
5152	6	40	H3	50
5163	8	40	H3	5
5540	3	40	H3	5
5765	3	40	H3	5
5765	4	40	H3	5
5768	3	40	H3	5
5768	4	40	H3	5
5769	3	40	H3	5
5769	4	40	H3	5
5797	3	40	H3	5
5802	3	40	H3	5
5802	4	40	H3	5
5540	2	40	HT	5
5765	2	40	H3	5
5768	2	40	H3	5
5769	2	40	H3	5
5797	2	40	H3	5
5802	2	40	H3	5
4512	1	48	H3	5
4779	1	48	H3	5
4784	1	48	H3	5
5164	1	48	HT	50
5167	1	48	HT	50
5168	1	48	HT	50
5173	1	48	HT	50
5174	1	48	HT	50
5182	1	48	HT	50
5191	1	48	HT	50
5203	1	47	HT	5
4512	6	48	H3	50
4779	6	48	TH	50
4784	6	48	TH	50
5158	6	48	H3	50
5164	6	48	HT	5
5167	6	48	HT	5
5168	4	48	HT	5
5173	4	48	HT	5
5174	4	48	HT	5
5182	6	48	HT	5
5191	6	48	HT	5
5203	4	47	H3	5
5203	6	47	H3	5
5212	3	48	H3	50
5212	8	48	H3	50
5213	6	48	H3	50
5215	3	48	H3	5
5215	4	48	H3	50
5216	3	48	H3	5
5216	4	48	H3	50
4512	2	48	H3	5
4779	2	48	H3	5
4784	2	48	H3	5
5164	2	48	H3	50
5167	2	48	H3	50
5168	2	48	H3	50
5173	2	48	H3	50
5174	2	48	H3	50
5182	2	48	H3	50
5191	2	48	H3	50
5203	2	47	H3	50
5136	1	56	H3	95
5137	1	56	H3	95
5138	1	56	H3	95
5139	1	57	H3	95
5140	1	56	H3	95
5136	3	56	H3	50
5136	8	56	H3	50
5137	6	56	H3	50
5138	6	56	H3	50
5139	6	57	H3	50
5140	6	56	H3	50
5143	3	56	H3	5
5144	9	56	H3	5
5145	3	57	H3	5
5210	3	56	H3	5
5211	3	56	H3	5
5388	3	56	H3	5
5388	4	56	H3	50
5404	3	56	H3	5
5404	4	56	H3	50
5713	3	56	HT	50
5713	4	56	H3	5
5714	3	56	HT	50
5714	4	56	H3	5
5715	3	56	HT	50
5715	4	56	H3	5
5136	2	56	H3	95
5137	2	56	H3	95
5138	2	56	H3	95
5139	2	57	H3	95
5140	2	56	H3	95